Re: alternatives not taken into account in automatic accidentals

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On 9 Aug 2009, at 18:21, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> Dan Eble wrote:
>>> I appreciate your reply.  Applying this statement to certain
>>> other figures (e.g. key signature or clef) would indicate a bug.
>>> Does a non-functional bar line differ from those?
>>
>> I wouldn't apply that statement to other figures. This is a
>> specific behavior of the \bar command.
>
> OK, but what I was trying to ask is, is it a *correct* behavior of the
> \bar command? Saying that something is so differs from saying that it
> should be so.

For \bar "", it is probable sensible behavior.  For visible bar lines, I
feel hard put to feel the same.

-- 
David Kastrup